Half-way

We're now more than half-way done with the book and I am still not sure about the point. A few chapters ago I wanted to tear apart E F-G's use of "natural law" as entirely inconsistent with the generally accepted philosophical meaning. The next chapter I wanted to rip into her portrayal of history since she seemed to imply that privileged women having sex before marriage was somehow the result of the feminist movement and sexual revolution. Now I have gotten to the point where I wonder whether the stories in the book even seem real to anyone outside of the Northeast. If the point of stories is to have them resonate in a different way than pure argument, why not tell a wider variety of stories?

But I am trying to see beyond my quibbles to read E F-G's deeper points.

She thinks that the reality of women is captured neither by radical feminists nor the conservatives.

Fair enough.

She thinks that women "never outgrow the need for stories about women's lives" (150). Certainly.

"Feminism is not the story of our lives, but neither is full-time domesticity" (152)

Indeed.

Women are individuals with different hopes and dreams.

Hence the fact that there is not a cohesive story of "our" lives.

Of course I still disagree with E F-G on little points: "Men just never seem to understand that women need privacy as much as they do." (Actually my husband is very good at giving me space) And big ones: sexual freedom contributes to women's danger (then why is it that you were just telling us the stories of the danger in past generations when women had to sleep in separate rooms from their *husbands*?!).

But I can agree with her that marriage and mothering will always be central to women's lives when taken as a whole. So I guess that if that is the point of the book, then I will be more likely to agree than to disagree.

What do you think about the book so far?